We need to ... or the application of PsyOps

How many times have we been presented with the phrase, "We need to ... ,". It is rarely phrased, "I need to ... ." The fundamental idea behind the "we" is psychological operations (PsyOps.) The objective is to convince others to join the presenter in their quest to effect some change in the status quo. Usually the scant evidence presented is mischaracterized, inflammatory and specifically chosen for the greatest emotional effect possible. Accuracy is strictly forbidden due to the probability that the quest would be met with "so what?"



PsyOps are totally dependent on emotional responses, guilt and sense of duty. Let us look at each of these and understand the implications.



Emotional responses have a power so great it is hard to fully grasp. Mention a harm to children and watch mothers bristle with rage. Talk against animal welfare to a vegan and stand back. The list is endless. Almost everyone has an ethos derived from the social structure they were raised in. It is usually well thought out, but lacks any supporting evidence for its existence. This is not to say that evidence doesn't exist, but rather the individual or group can't verbalize it. The ethos is traditional. These traditions are common to the members, but may very well be alien ideas to people outside the membership.



I shall present an example: Child labor. The poor children are forced to work 10 hours a day in a sweat shop. We need to do something. Bullshit! Since the dawn of time, children have had one mission in life, become an adult. It was only during the depression of 1929-54 that child labor became an issue. We (in the persona of FDR) needed to get children out of the workforce. There wasn't enough jobs to go around. Well meaning, but ignorant people invented the idea of an extended childhood and worse still, rights of children exceeding those of their parents. This should cause a bout of apoplexy. I could inflame the readership more on this example, but I won't. The HELL I won't. Here is the harsh reality, children are untrained animals. And ... most adults are trained animals.



Did this elicit an emotional response?



Then there is the guilt effect. Most people have a guilty conscience about something and usually everything. I could have, I should have, ... ad nauseum. We have been conditioned to accept guilt for every activity perpetrated by the body politic and the actions of other individuals we are acquainted with. Hence the perverted idea of responsibility for the actions of others. Much of this guilt is derived from actions we participated in as children.



A classic example is homosexuality. Most children experiment with homosexuality. Most are conditioned that this is unacceptable conduct by theologists, parents and their peers. The subject continues to be in the national news in spite of all the evidence that humans are sexual in nature and same-gender affection is normal in humans and widespread in nature. Consequently, many citizens share common guilt and abhorrence for same-gender relations. We have to protect our sons and (to a minor degree) daughters from this abomination. This is not meant to infer child molestation is okay, normal or otherwise. Rather that child-child experimentation is normal. Adult-child sexual contact is abuse by a mentally disturbed animal that in a responsible society protective of children would result in putting the animal down.

Many might tender the question of treatment rather than execution. We can't exact punishment on a mentally disturbed animal. Why not? Is there any evidence that the animal can be retrained? No? So is it the responsibility of the citizens to eliminate a real and definable threat to children? Should the citizens provide for the health and welfare of a criminal that can't be reformed? Here is my take. Death is inevitable. Our choices in life can definitely determine our lifespan. Climb enough mountains and you might fall. Drinking and driving can substantially reduce your continued existence. There is no evidence to support the premise that a molester hasn't a choice when it comes to action.

I drifted a little off the track, but choice is choice. A person might have desire and create no problem, but acting on that desire is. Consider, if you will, the desires of older men for younger women. There is a biological imperative, IE. breeding potential of a younger woman. Notice the term is woman, not child. Older women-younger men will get the woman the title of cougar. Society frowns on both of these issues in spite of it being normal. I contend that this frowning is based upon guilt. Thou shalt not look at a younger adult and fantasize.



Lastly we have the "sense of duty" aspect to consider. In a nutshell, we need to send our children to foreign lands to meet exciting people and kill them in order to defend our Constitution. What a load of crap. Yes, there is a time to fight. However the idea of "clear and present danger" is non-existent so our elected trained animals use emotive responses and future guilt to convince us of the necessity for combat operations. If we don't, our children will wear the shackles of slavery.



Shades of grade school! Better the bully than to be the bullied. You gotta learn how to stand up for yourself.



Oh well. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty and shove it on to you.
----------------------------------------------------
If this post inflames your sense of virtue, good. It means I have provoked you to think. So quit acting on emotional, guilt or sense of duty arguments. Logical reasoning is what separates humans from animals. Most Homo Sapiens fail to reach full status as humans. Many remain animals their entire life. It is unfortunate that we humans are so prone to thinking the best about others of our specie without any supporting evidence.